Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> # Automatically generated email from bts, devscripts version 2.10.10
> tags 420701 pending
Bug#420701: debian-policy: GFDL is now in common-licenses
There were no tags set.
Tags added: pending
> tags 412634 pending
Bug#412634: 5.6.17 (Urgency) should l
Santiago Vila <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> reassign 435476 debian-policy
> thanks
>
> On Wed, 1 Aug 2007, Carl Fürstenberg wrote:
>
>> Package: base-files
>> Version: 4.0.0
>> Severity: wishlist
>>
>> I've seen plenty of instances of the usage of MIT License. Wouldn't it
>> be optimal to include
Okay, here's yet another try at the wording for this that tries to exclude
Autotools and friends without making the wording too awkward.
Word-smithing welcome (as are any other comments).
--- orig/policy.sgml
+++ mod/policy.sgml
@@ -2077,6 +2077,32 @@
the file to the list in debian/files
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> # Automatically generated email from bts, devscripts version 2.10.10
> forcemerge 382612 444270
Bug#382612: [PROPOSAL] Document ~ behavior in version numbers
Bug#444270: debian-policy: policy doesn't say anything on ~ in Version numbers
Forcibly Merged
Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Here is a proposed patch to put a normative list of supported Urgency
> values into Policy and to reconcile the two different informative lists
> currently there by removing the footnote in the changelog section and
> having that section simply defer to t
"Kai Wb." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Package: debian-policy
> Version: 3.7.2.2
> Severity: minor
> Tags: patch
>
> On page 20 (30 in the PDF) in the annotations/footnotes (number 8) it is
> stated that the RFC822-conform date is generated by the program
> 822-date. This program (Perl-Script) st
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> # Automatically generated email from bts, devscripts version 2.10.10
> tags 448035 pending
Bug#448035: debian-policy: 822-date is deprecated (use date -R instead)
Tags were: patch
Tags added: pending
>
End of message, stopping processing here.
Please
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> # Automatically generated email from bts, devscripts version 2.10.10
> forcemerge 453265 361418
Bug#453265: debian-policy: [menu-policy.txt.gz] Apps menu should read
'Applications'
Bug#361418: [Proposal] new Debian menu structure
Forcibly Merged 361418
Jim Sansing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> However, after reading the discussion in bug report 431109, I am
> wondering what is the rationale behind the common-licenses directory?
Mainly that repeating the uncompressed text of the GPL in every package
licensed under the GPL actually ends up taking
Bill Allombert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hello Debian policy,
>
> There is a slight intersection between the sections:
>
> Games/Toys
> Amusements, eye-candy, entertaining
> demos, screen hacks (screensavers), etc.
> xdesktopwaves, xphoon, xpenguins
>
> Screen
> Programs that affect th
Simon Josefsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> How about fixing the stylistic issue of saying 'For example, ..., and so
> on.'? Actually, the filenames doesn't strike me as examples at all.
>
> How about 'In particular, /usr/..., respectively.' instead? And make
> sure the paths are given in the
Bill Allombert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, Nov 28, 2007 at 06:19:38PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> That's the last change to the canonical repository, yes.
>>
>> I have a bunch of changes queued in my personal repository (including the
>> menu policy update) but hadn't gotten a lot of
Clint Adams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, Nov 28, 2007 at 06:19:38PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> That's the last change to the canonical repository, yes.
>> I have a bunch of changes queued in my personal repository (including the
>> menu policy update) but hadn't gotten a lot of feedbac
Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Package: debian-policy
> Version: 3.7.2.2
> Severity: wishlist
>
> Per recent mail from Guillem Jover, the version number is also added
> to the Source field of .changes files for binNMUs. This change was
> made in dpkg 1.13.22 and is therefore currently
"Felipe Augusto van de Wiel (faw)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Since I'm not an experient bazaar/arch/tla/bzr user
> I can't give precise information, sorry, but I hope this
> helps. Arch repositories have something similar to SVN:
>
> http://arch.debian.org/
>
> Two of
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> # Automatically generated email from bts, devscripts version 2.10.10
> tags 431814 pending
Bug#431814: Source field of .changes files may contain a version number
There were no tags set.
Tags added: pending
>
End of message, stopping processing here.
Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Looking at debian/rules, I'm fairly sure that there's no point in
> unpacking the archive since we don't ever use the contents. We ship the
> pre-built output files.
>
> We were also installing the FHS files twice, which doesn't look necessary.
>
> Manoj
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> # Automatically generated email from bts, devscripts version 2.10.10
> tags 424212 pending
Bug#424212: debian-policy: FTBFS if built twice in a row
There were no tags set.
Bug#442540: debian-policy: FTBFS if build twice in a row
Tags added: pending
>
E
Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Package: debian-policy
> Version: 3.7.2.2
> Severity: wishlist
> Now that etch has released, the dpkg in stable supports unwrapping a
> wrapped Uploaders field in debian/control. This fix was made in dpkg
> 1.13.14, uploaded to experimental on 2006-02-1
On Wed, Nov 28, 2007 at 06:19:38PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> That's the last change to the canonical repository, yes.
>
> I have a bunch of changes queued in my personal repository (including the
> menu policy update) but hadn't gotten a lot of feedback on whether or not
> I should just merge t
20 matches
Mail list logo
